All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Court of Appeals Cases |
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
1997-05 |
-
112 F.3d 1169
VALMET PAPER MACHINERY, INC., & Valmet, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BELOIT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.No. 95-1301.
United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.May 1, 1997.
Myron Cohen, Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane, New York City, submitted a response for plaintiffs-appellants to a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc. With him on the petition were William A. Alper and Michael C. Stuart. Of counsel on the response were Michael Evan Jaffe, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, D.C., and Brian E. Butler, Stafford, Rosenbaum, Rieser & Hansen, Madison, WI.
George P. McAndrews, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL, submitted a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc for defendant-appellee. With him on the petition were Steven J. Hampton, Gregory C. Schodde, and Michael B. Harlin.
Prior report: 105 F.3d 1409.
Before RICH, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
RICH, Circuit Judge.
1Beloit Corp. petitions for rehearing of our decision of January 28, 1997 holding that its U.S. Patents 5,144,758 and 5,249,372 are invalid on the ground of obviousness. Valmet Paper Mach., Inc. v. Beloit Corp., 105 F.3d 1409 (Fed.Cir.1997). Beloit argues, inter alia, that only certain claims of those patents were asserted and that, accordingly, invalidation of the entire patents was improper. While Valmet responds that the decision is correct, it states that it has no objection to the court confining the decision to the five claims in dispute, namely claims 1 and 2 of the '372 patent and claims 1-3 of the '758 patent.
2We have carefully reviewed Beloit's petition and Valmet's response. For the reasons stated in the opinion, we agree with Valmet that the asserted claims are invalid on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In light of Valmet's concession and our further review of the record, however, we conclude that the decision should be limited to the five claims in dispute and that other minor corrections should be made to the opinion.
3Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
4Beloit's petition for rehearing is granted to the extent that the following changes have been made to the opinion.
5On page 4, line 6 [105 F.3d 1411], "row" has been changed to--group--.
6On page 4, line 7 [105 F.3d 1411], "row" has been changed to--group--and the second occurrence of "a" has been deleted.
7On page 4, line 8 [105 F.3d 1411], "group applies" has been changed to--groups apply--and "row" has been changed to--group--.
8On page 4, line 9 [105 F.3d 1411], "row" has been changed to--group--.
9On page 6, line 8 [105 F.3d 1412], "Beloit's patent claims" has been changed to--claims 1 and 2 of the '372 patent and claims 1-3 of the '758 patent--.
10On page 7, line 7 [105 F.3d 1412], "Beloit's '758 and '372 patents are valid and infringed" has been changed to--claims 1 and 2 of the '372 patent and claims 1-3 of the '758 patent are not invalid and are infringed--.
11On page 8, line 4 [105 F.3d 1412],--asserted--has been added before "claims".
12On page 8, lines 17-19 [105 F.3d 1413], the following text has been deleted: "where the first row dries one side of the web, then the web travels up to the second row which takes it back in the opposite direction to dry the opposite side."
13On page 8, line 19 [105 F.3d 1413],--asserted--has been added before "claims".
14On page 10, line 12 [105 F.3d 1413],--asserted--has been added before "claimed".
15On page 10, line 16 [105 F.3d 1414], "both Beloit's '758 and '372 patents" has been changed to--claims 1 and 2 of the '372 patent and claims 1-3 of the '758 patent--.
Document Info
Docket Number: 95-1301
Citation Numbers: 112 F.3d 1169
Judges: Bryson, Lourie, Rich
Filed Date: 5/1/1997
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 8/5/2023